Nobody ever asked you to like anybody, nor did anybody say Nazi's were good. Rather people have suggested that we give some attention to foundation issues, blocking policy, controversial blocks policy, and most importantly NPOV. Jack (Sam Spade) On 8/25/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

If you don't ever call anything evil, you also lose the power to present anything as "Good." I disagree that we should refain from taking a moral stance and let the facts just sort themselves out because of this. For example, if I refuse to call a serial killer 'evil' and just write what he did, I also lose the ability to call the detecitive who caught him a 'good' person, as all I can do is present the facts. I would also technically lose the ability to say what happened to the victims was 'bad'. I know wiki is supposed to have a NPOV, but that doesn mean that it has to lack moral judgement as well. On 8/25/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson <haukurth(a)hi.is> wrote:

The N in NPOV doesn't stand for No, it stands for Nuetral. Every article has a POV, and many articles contain moral judgement without violating NPOV. On 8/25/05, Jake Waskett <jake(a)waskett.org> wrote:

Um, no, that's not the point, because that's not why Amalekite was banned. Jay.

On 8/25/05, JAY JG &lt;jayjg(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote: I went back through the logs to try to discover why Amalekite was banned, and I cannot find a reason <i>on Wikipedia</i> other than statements that boil down to "I disagree with his POV" or "I don't like his edits". I haven't found anything to indicate that this users' edits were in bad faith, even though I would revert or rephrase every one that I've seen. I've looked a little (but only a little) at the external Stormfront site, and only saw roughly the equivalent of a "watchlist" of people whose POVs are opposite this person's. I suspect I'm not looking in the right places. You seem to know better than most people in this discussion exactly why Amalekite was banned. Can you explain it fully for those of us who don't know, or cannot find the reason? Finally, on somewhat offtopic and mildly humorous note, I find this block a lot more than just a little ironic: "13:55, 21 August 2005, "Neutrality" blocked "POV destroyer" (infinite) (Inappropriate username.)" -- Michael Turley User:Unfocused

On 8/25/05, JAY JG &lt;jayjg(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote: Again, I don't find anything to suport the ban in compliance with our policies. Even in re-reading, it appears we've banned someone solely for their beliefs and philosophy; have I made an error? Calvinball is fine if everyone wants to play, but I think this discussion proves that there are a significant number of members who would rather take the moral high ground and let this user nuke himself with his actions instead of joining him in the cesspool of prejudice and discrimination. This is no surprise to me. The Israelites were sworn enemies of the Amalekites as well. Not only that, the Israelites exterminated the Amalekites! Genocide, pure and simple, and merciless. Documented in 1 Samuel 15. It was Yahweh's test of Saul to see if he could follow distasteful instructions to the letter, for he was later scolded and had the role of King taken away from him for showing the slightest mercy. "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." ..."He (Saul) took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword" ..."And Samuel put Agag to death before the LORD at Gilgal." If the original ban was for the choice of user name, and the editor permitted to come back with a different name, that would make sense, if we also wouldn't allow a user name of "Israelite". However, if we decide to retroactively apply this standard, we should start with an apology. (Apologize to a Nazi? WTF? Well, the moral high ground does demand an apology when you make a mistake that harms another.) -- Michael Turley User:Unfocused

On 8/25/05, JAY JG &lt;jayjg(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote: Let's not split hairs over the Israeli genocide of Amalekites. Attempted to commit genocide against the Israelites? By being attacked and killed down to the very last suckling infant by the order of Yahweh? I guess it's true then, that the victors write the history books. Being enemies is one thing; committing genocide is quite another. "Attempted to commit genocide" by being the victim of genocide. Wow. If you are correct about his mindset, why should we continue to feed his "victim of genocidal hatred" mindset? "Indicative of his mindset" is not a good excuse for persecuting someone, which is what we've continued to do by leaving the indefinite block in place, given that no other policy than "IAR" supports the ban. -- Michael Turley User:Unfocused

This discussion is getting a little circular, stale, and off-topic. Anyone who wants me to unblock Amalekite should e-mail me. So far I've had e-mails supportive of the block, but not one from anyone thinking it should be overturned. If people e-mail me directly with their views, I'll have a better idea of community consensus, and then I can take it into account. Sarah

On 8/25/05, Michael Turley &lt;michael.turley(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Well, actually, that's how it normally works. Admins usually don't undo blocks unless a clear error has been made. Normally when we disagree with a block, we discuss it with the blocking admin. My objection in this case (apart from what Amalekite did by posting his Wikipedia ethnic hit list, which I see as grounds for a block) was that the unblocking admin didn't discuss it with Homeontherange, who was the blocking admin. Now that I've reblocked, it would be appreciated if people with concerns would discuss the block directly with me or with Homeontherange. Sarah

On 8/26/05, Snowspinner &lt;Snowspinner(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: What, mentioning Nazis in a discussion of Nazis? -- Peter in Canberra

Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote: I said this privately and I will say it publicly. I support the permanent block on Amalekite. He can edit Nazipedia all he wants now. In case we all forgot, Wikipedia is about making an encyclopedia, not providing a platform for every nutbag with an agenda to spill his nonsense all over us. At risk of extending this thread beyond its already unnaturally long life, I'll leave it at that. - Ryan

I find the subject important because I came to the wikipedia to edit (donating my time and work) under the asumption that it was an open project, w NPOV as its guiding policy. I don't want to be a part of a project that excludes racists, anymore than I want to be part of a project that excludes Jews, or arabs, communists or what-have-you. Jack (Sam Spade) On 8/26/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson &lt;haukurth(a)hi.is&gt; wrote:

Yeah, I agree, things are more complicated than everyone (including me) is articulating. I guess what it really boils down to is [[Wikipedia:Controvesial blocks]] vrs. [[WP:IAR]], and not for the first time... Jack (Sam Spade) On 8/26/05, geni &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 8/25/05, JAY JG &lt;jayjg(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote: It was not I who made it a point to mention the history of the users' name as if that added to the legitimacy of blocking the user. Now that your point has struck your own buttocks, naturally you wish to discard it. Fine. It is not a bannable offense to choose an exterminated nation as a user name. That's all I was explaining. Again, you were the one to make an assumption of Amalekite's mindset part of your point. It is not a straw man argument to then discuss how we should proceed if your assumption is correct. You established the tangent, not I. I believe you should review the straw man article more carefully yourself. -- Michael Turley User:Unfocused

Ive made an offlist request to SlimVirgin to either unblock or take it directly to the Arbcom, who may apply a temp-block, if they like. We can now all try to forget this thread ever happened, --as Im sure everybody wants to do. New topic: Something,anything else. SV ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

On 25/08/05, steve v &lt;vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: We've had it noticed we just passed 700,000 articles on en.wiki. Somewhat less noted, in the past few days we also passed 400,000 accounts registered... which is a rather nice thing to note. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 8/25/05, JAY JG &lt;jayjg(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote: Yeah, sure, that's why you said "indicative of his mindset". You wrote: "the editor identifies with the Amalekites, either in identifying with those who attempted to commit genocide against Israelites, or in feeling he is targeted for genocide by them. In either case, it is indicative of his mindset." Now you say "indicative of his mindset" has nothing to do with the topic at hand? Then why did you mention it? Not if you deny it ever happened, it cannot. If you re-read everything I've written on this subject carefully, I think you'll find that addressing me as if I were a troll is a very hostile and unfair thing to do. I've taken this subject seriously the entire time, and every single comment has been with the intent of improving Wikipedia. If you consider that trolling, then I think your judgement is poorer than the average editor. -- Michael Turley User:Unfocused

On 8/25/05, Measure &lt;measure(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Wikipedia is not a place for moral judgements. We don't need the power to present anything as "good" or call anything "evil". In fact, we should <i>avoid</i> all temptation to present things as "good" or "evil". Making moral judgements is not the realm of encyclopedia writers. Instead, we report the moral judgements of others in the world, properly sourced and cited. That is what NPOV is. -- Michael Turley User:Unfocused

I'm sorry that I misunderstood you. I stand corrected. Interpreting the message of parodies is probably not one of my strong points. I honestly thought you were talking about the demonization of nazis, rather than the banning of User:Amalekite. He did not edit disruptively. Anything else he may have done happened off Wikipedia. Some participants in this discussion are of the opinion that no off site actions should be taken into account in the banning of Wikipedia users. Among the reasons that have been mentioned is that we can rarely be completely certain that a Wikipedia user is identical to a person posting on another site. Another reason is that the content of such sites can change quickly, making review of decisions based on it difficult. A third reason is that it can be a daunting task to read through off site forums for evidence in such a case, especially if the forum in question contains material which many Wikipedians are likely to find distasteful. I'm personally 99% certain that User:Amalekite is the same person as the Frank Sinatra poster on the Stormfront forums (rather than just pretending to be the same person). That poster did compile a list of Wikipedians - but not for attack, as far as I can see. His own words are: "Monitor the activities of the first 5 on the list (watch their user contribution pages and their user talk pages) and you'll have a good idea of what the entire gang is up to." Nevertheless I can understand that people might be uncomfortable with having their user page on such a list in that particular forum. The Frank Sinatra poster certainly did say nasty things about the Wikipedians on the top of his list - calling them "ruthless and vicious" among other things. He also made some more general remarks on Jews but I don't feel that's relevant. Regards, Haukur

Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote: While I think almost everyone will agree that off site actions are *different* from on-site actions, and should certainly not be treated in the same way, I have so far found no persuasive argument that *no* off site actions should be taken into account in the banning of Wikipedia users. As an example, once upon a time a particularly demented and evil person posted photos of my family (wife and little girl) with disgusting insults on a website attacking Wikipedia. He posted links to a quicktime movie of my house, and made ominous suggestions about my home address and his "followers". I was out of town and frightened enough to have Terry go and spend the night on the couch guarding the family. That person is permanently banned from Wikipedia, period. I don't think anyone disputes the ethics of this. (Fortunately, he was arrested on felony charges in an unrelated matter, and as far as I know, he's in prison now.) I consider the Amelekite case to be in the same genre, although slightly (but only slightly) less obvious. --Jimbo

I don't personally hold such an absolute position. In exceptional cases, like the one you describe below, I'd agree that off-site actions should be taken into account. I certainly don't. I'd have done the same. I consider them very different indeed. Amelekite made absolutely no attempt to link Wikipedian user names to real identities of people. Nor did he even imply that this was possible. Nor did he call for harassment of the people in question, even within Wikipedia. He called for monitoring of their actions and fighting what he perceived as their bias. He made no threats whatsoever, direct or implied. He did use nasty vocabulary in referring to the people on his list. If he'd done it inside Wikipedia I would not have objected to a block. But since it obviously wasn't his intention that his rude words would ever reach the ears of the people he applied them to I feel that we should give less weight to them (but certainly some weight). I also feel we should give weight to the facts that he a) edited in good faith on Wikipedia, as shown by his contribution log b) called for any new recruits to the 'pedia to respect our rules and the Neutral Point of View c) promoted legitimate user names and adherence to the rules as the best way of avoiding blocks. Summing all this up I find the block unwarranted. I can understand that reasonable people may disagree and may want to give more weight to other aspects of the issue. It's a close call. Regards, Haukur